Why not just brand criminals like cattle? I don't know, a star of David on their face, something like that? Cut off an ear or a hand. These practices have been banned in all Western societies - in fact in all englightened societies - not least because of the idea that punishment should be limited in time, and in proportion to the crime committed.
Putting somebody's photo on a website like this is in effect very similar to branding; just think how difficult it is to get rid of the stupid pranks you put on Facebook when you were a teenager - and the consequences that can have. It is about fairness - about getting a second chance in life. Most people have, after all, done things that could have given them some sort of criminal record, had they been found out. Would you like to be branded for life just because you were a stupid teenager who felt compelled to prove that you "dared"? There is a big difference between getting a slap on your wrrist and having your hand cut off.
...the Personal Data Store includes a mechanism for fine-grained management of permissions for sharing of data...
You mean like in Oracle, where the list of system and object privileges cover 14 pages in the manual (version 12)? In my experience this is simply too unwieldy to use in practice; in most cases you end up defining a small handful of roles (in Oracle: a bundle of privileges) that are used for everybody. Or if you are the average, lazy guy, you just grant dba to all users; you wouldn't believe how many Oracle instances I have come across, where the SYS account still had password "CHANGE_ON_INSTALL".
There is a reason why the admittedly crude and primitive permission model of UNIX is still around: it is easy to understand and use, and it can be surprisingly effective.
This is not, by any chance, connected to a general trend in the US to scale down funding for research and education? To me it looks like an act of desparation, like trying to revive the record industry with a season of X-factor.
There is no denying that young people have a lot of creativity and talent, but talent is only a small part of success; you may say that talent is "instant success" - you just need to add about 90% water in the form of sweat.
...will have to sever ties with their Chinese collaborators...
The obvious consequence of this sort of stupidity is that the Chinese will start leaving the US. Meanwhile, EU are investing heavily in research and so is China. Is it difficult to imagine that in a few years' time not only Chinese scientists, but also European and, for that matter, American, scientists, will be looking to work somewhere that is not the US? And unfortunately this is not just a silly hiccup, it is part of a trend that has shut down most of America's space exploration, as well as a lot of high-energy physics, just to mention two areas out of the whole mess.
... Once I had mountains in the palm of my hand And rivers that ran through ev'ry day I must have been mad I never knew what I had Until I threw it all away...
- Bob Dylan, Nashville Skyline (I Threw It All Away)
No - when you go to the cinema, you buy a product, and if you find that you have paid for something that is significantly different from what was advertised, you can complain and possibly even get your money back.
On the other hand, gambling outlets never advertize with "Come and lose a bit of money on a couple of hours of poker surrounded by tacky glitter"; their adverts are more along the lines of "Imagine if you won the jackpot" - something that is manifestly unlikely. IOW, they are clearly selling a lie; and the fact that the objective, average losses are fairly small doesn't really mean that it is OK - cheating your customers a little is still cheating.
You may argue that we should allow a little bit of cheating, because the harm is limited and so on, but that is another discussion altogether. Cheating is cheating even if we tolerate it, so let us call it by its real name.
The whole damn point of the USA is that we don't have a ruling class who gets to live by a different set of rules than the peons
It's a beautiful dream, but a dream is all it is. When the outcome of a legal case depends on how much money you have to pay for a lawyer, then you have, in effect, different laws for different classes. And since money and other wealth can be inherited, you actually have a mechanism for inheriting class independently of your personal merits. Just take the Bush family as an example: would GWB have become president of the US, if he had been the son of a factory worker?
Even the potential for upward mobility in American society is not unique - it has always been possible for a clever person to work their way up through the ranks; Roman and Greek slaves could win their freedom and achieve high titles, churls (a very low class in feudal society) could become nobles etc - there are many examples throughout history. What really makes a class society is when the useless children of the upper classes end up as rulers despite their distinct lack of ability. Does that not sound like the US today?
Greedy? I suppose so. But it has always struck me as a funny way to look at things, when casinoes call people cheaters; they are the ones who invite people to come and throw their money out against overwhelming odds: "You MIGHT win" - yeah, and all the air molecules in the room might suddenly end up in one corner. After all, it is only probability that keeps it from happening.
The standard argument one always hears is that "Nobody forces people go and be stupid". All that means, IMO, is that some people don't have the backbone to stand up for decency.
That's some impressive links you've got there - are you a marine yourself?
I'm not saying that you are wrong, but I think you are talking about what makes a good leader, and I'm talking about the simple basics of what leadership is: you lead, if you in some sense get others to follow you - ie. you go in front. Not all leadership strives to be as excellent, magnificent, powerful and competent as what they aim for in the Marine; I haven't studied the links you gave me yet, but I will.
Do you know what is meant by "servant leadership"? in my view that is pretty much the ideal leadership style - try looking it up.
On the face of it, it just looks ridiculous, of course. But that is often the case, when you are the first one to stand up and demand something. I don't know about America, but in my life time, I have seen several times that some pimply-faced youth has stood up for some issue that sounds stupid, pompous and completely out of touch - only to see that person become someone that you have to take serious some years later. So, don't underestimate this - it is about showing leadership, something that is so often misunderstood. Leadership only means that you are the first one to do something - that you go in front and others follow you; it often fails, but not always, and not because the issue itself is stupid.
Personally, I sympathise with the idea, even if it seems unrealistic. I suspect most people do, actually - we have all done one or two things in our youth, that we'd rather not be reminded of; the difference is that we didn't have access to a Facebook or some other forum where your social skidmarks are going to stick around for ever.
On the other hand, I think this is something that is going to be so pervasive that it will be commonplace, and when it is commonplace, it will get ignored, even in professional contexts. Not many years ago it was still seen as very damaging, if a public figure was revealed to have smoken cannabis as a teenager - who was it that tried to claim that "he hadn't inhaled"? But we all know that most people have done that or worse at some point, and in the end people will just shrug it off because it doesn't matter at all.
...ICANN is located in the US, but mostly because the most used services are based in the US...
Even companies that are perceived as American are no longer really so. Yes, Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, IBM, Oracle,... have head offices in the US, but the have a very real, physical presence in many other countries, including China. So, today "American company" very often means "a company that started in America", that's all. People in Europe, who use Google probably only pass through the US occasionally. The internet is already "non US-centric". The Brazilians, if they put a cable across the Atlantic directly to Europe and cut the one running to the US, would not even notice the difference.
I think it is well documented that people learn better when they have fun - even to the extent that the fun doesn't have to be at all relevant to the subject. I recall an experiment where a comedy movie was shown on a screen while a teacher went through his lecture and his class remembered and understood the subject better than a class that didn't watch the movie.
The danger is that humour is sometimes difficult to get right; if you get it wrong, it prejudices the student against the subject. I've tried it myself - when I first encountered Perl, I was put off by things like "bless" and similar attempts at being funny (I assume?), and I'd still today rather shave with a cheese grater than use Perl. A shame, really, I've heard it is really useful, but there you are.
IMNSHO, we need much stronger laws to prevent repurposing of these kinds of data or retaining it any longer than strictly necessary
Perhaps - I just can't see that it will make much difference. The problem is that law enforcement is hugely inefficient - just look at patent as an example: if there were enough competent patent clarks, we would probably not have even 10% of the patents registered that we have today. But there are't enough resources available, so what is basically a good mechanism meant to protect the interests of the clever inventor, has become simply a tool that big corporations use to bully those with less resources. In the same way, more legislation will simply become another way to bully those with less resources.
I'm not so worried about adverts - over time I have learned to ignore adverts even to the extent of making a point of not buying things that advertised agressively. I don't think I am the only one either.
It's the same with privacy - of course I don't enjoy the thought that some odious lowlife may be poring over my innermost secrets, but it's just part of life, whether we like it or not. And who knows, maybe one day we find a way to make it either pointless or hideously unattractive - I would imagine ogling me in the nude is already pretty close as it is.
Well, we should care a bit - certainly enough to not lose the ability to decode it and transform information to other formats. There's a science fiction story about this (or probably many), about how we digitized all our knowledge and then lost the key, so to speak.
OK, here's a radical thought for you: perhaps we don't need 'an internet of things'? Personally, I can't for the life of me see why I need my fridge, telly or toothbrush to be directly visible on the open internet. Even if I felt I needed to be able to see what's in my fridge from the other side of the world, I am sure I could do that easily with existing technology.
Why Are Some Hell-Bent On Teaching Intelligent Design?
Well, as you say, they are Hell-Bent. If you truly believe in God as the ultimate Truth, then you don't try to twist facts to fit your superstitions - because everything we can learn about the reality He has created will give us a greter understanding of Him.
The Bible, on the other hand, is just a collection of stories, told and retold by people to people and interpreted by people. How can it be anything but imperfect? Even if everything was directly inspired by God, it still had to be put into words of an imperfect language with a limited set of concepts. A person who really trusts God must by necessity see the Bible imperfect, even based on these simple considerations. Yes, it has its good points, and the stories about Jesus are inspirational, certainly; but to an open minded person, so is Harry Potter, to pick something at random.
So, the reason why some people chose to believe in the Bible rather than God, and try to twist reality to fit into a story about how the God of the Bible created everything in 7 days, must be because they are "Hell-Bent": they have bowed down to evil. What we call evil is so often about refusing to accept the plain truth in front of our eyes and the consequences of that refusal.
Anyway, that is my opinion, polished up and sprinkled with religion. Take the religion away and it is still true.
But I'm hoping we never actually prove that souls exist
How can we prove that when we don't even have a valid definition of what a soul is?
But any way, I think you look at it from the wrong perspective and attach far to much physical reality to what is merely an application of our ability to manage information. The power of the "soul" lies not in the amount of raw energy it stores, but in the fact that it manages the flow of something stronger. It is a misconception just like the idea that mankind is somehow the master of all creation, when in fact we are vastly outnumbered in every respect by micro organisms.
The soul is like a computer program, an abstraction, if you wish, for a set of electric signals that control a much stronger, physical reality. And like a computer program, the soul only has as much power as the subset of physical reality it can influence, and only for as long as that subset exists. When you switch off the computer, even the most magnificent program ceases to run.
I'd really rather not draw a Nyarlathotep-analogue's attention
Personally, I prefer to know what I am up against.
The Internet isn't supposed to be tied to country at all.
The internet is whatever it is - there are no universal laws, natural or otherwise, that govern what the internet should be. Other, perhaps, than the simple, physical engineering of it: you can't connect every computer directly to every other computer on the planet, so you do the sensible thing: connect to the ones closest by in a LAN, and connect LANs to a larger, regional network etc. Even without the question of one country spying on another, it is good, common sense to have several, hefty connections between country sized networks, so you are not cut off every time an intercontinental cable is damaged.
And to my mind at least, it makes perfect sense not to send all you traffic through a nation that can so easiliy be perceived as increasingly manipulative and untrustworthy in its intentions. When you look around in the world, this is what you find:
- America used to represent the ultimate freedom in many people's eyes; but it has been become much less so over the last 20 years. So, what people see is that IT IS GOING THE WRONG WAY. Where is America likely to be in another 10 years?
- Europe is, as Douglas Adams would have put it, mostly harmless. Not because they are marvellous and honest, but because they are so magnificently messy; will it have changed in 10 or 20 years' time? Nah.
- China used to be seen as extremely restrictive and backwards, but have improved massively and consistently over the last few decades. Where does it feel likely they will be in 10 or 20 years?
I mean, out of these three options, which one would YOU choose? Even Americans don't trust America any more.
My first thought when I read this was "That's a good idea, really" - not because I am against modern technology, but they have challenged themselves in a way, and found that it gives them something of real value.
I don't quite know if I find it amusing or shocking to see the sort of reactions here, even to the extremes of declaring that this is child abuse and an impending, national emergency. Really, you sound like a bunch of old prudes upon discovering that their teenage granddaughter as uncovered her ankle in public. What's up with you guys? Scared of the very thought that these people might be right, and you ought to put down your wankGadget and go into the big room with the blue ceiling?
Going outside, getting exercise, feeling the wind, sunshine and rain, meeting people and generally challenging yourself physically, socially and mentally are all good for you. You even become a better coder if you are not glued to the internet socket all day long. You will have more energy, you will feel less depressed.
I think we should applaud these guys - the internet and modern technology are good tools, but they are TOOLS. They shouldn't fill your whole life any more than a hammer or a frying pan.
Certainly, since you ask so politely - do you prefer an arm or a leg?
Do you know my mother tongue, Shanghainese, has been banned in kindergartens for decades and special permits are required to broadcast in the local public media?
Is that a fact? Well, my native dialect, Vendelbomaal, was similarly "oppressed" by the Danish government. It was not taught in school, we were all discouraged from speaking or writing it, and all public communications were in the official dialect. And the Danish state-controlled schools say that Vendelbomaal is only a dialect of Danish, despite the fact that nobody else understands it.
Now, of course, the above is a parody of your words, but it is factually true; you can go and check it if you don't believe it. And there are very good reasons for calling Vendelbomaal a dialect rather than a separate language from Danish - it is to do with history, language structure, common roots etc. But that is in fact the same reasons why Chinese dialects are called dialects: you can trace the Chinese written and spoken language back to common roots (see Karlgreen: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Grammata-Serica-Recensa-Bernhard-Karlgreen/dp/9576382696/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1378996910&sr=8-1&keywords=bernhard+karlgreen), for one thing.
When the commie government blurs the facts, they are pressing the ethnic/cultural homogenization button.
When people start pulling out emotional scare words like "commie" and "ethnic homogenization", what they really say is "I have no more arguments, so I am going to resort to name calling soon". I think you are feeling upset and you want it to be somebody's fault; I'm sorry if this is the case, I really am.
Just ask the happy and contented people of Tibet. Oh, you can't, the Chinese government doesn't let them talk to foreigners. Well, they're happy and contented. Just take our word for it.
You're just being silly now. It is perfectly possible to go to Xizang and talk to people; it is rather expensive, but not impossible, and even less so, now the new, high-speed railway is operating. I have travelled all over China in the last 10 years - Yunnan, Hainan, Hunan, Xinjiang, just to mention a few. This is not North Korea, nobody follows you around, discreetly intimidating the general population; but don't take my word for it - go and see for youself.
Of course the Tibetans are not all entirely happy about being part of China; what they are even less satisfied with is that there are so many Chinese immigrants. Just like a lot of Americans are unhappy about all those Mexican immigrants or whatever. I can understand that - it is upsetting when a lot of new people come in and sometimes seem to dominate more and more; it always leads to conflict, but it is not really because the Chinese government tries to oppress the poor Tibetans, no more than Mexico is trying to take over the US.
It's different. English is pretty much the defacto common language in the US, and it was chosen because it was the overwhelmingly dominant language. Mandarin has always been playing catch up trying to drown out regional languages. This article is not at all a surprise, it's mostly just showing how their ethnic homogenization programs are failing.
That's just a stupid thing to say. Mandarin is not "playing catch up trying to drown out regional languages" - the Chinese government has for a long time had an active policy of protecting minorities, their cultures and languages. However, it is important that everybody is able to communicate in the same language, so Mandarin is being taought in school, just like the Queen's English is being taught to all school children in UK, even if they speak another language at home.
And I think it is worth remembering that it was us proud, freedom-loving and democratic Westerners that went about ttrying to strangle local dialects and minority languages: in UK Welsh and Gaelic were suppressed, the Danes tried to eradicate inuit in Greenland, etc etc. As far as I know, the Chinese have never even tried something like that.
Lawsuit? Why miss the opportunity for combining a bit of fun and innocent entertainment with something that would benefit us all?
What we do is, arrange a shoot-out between NRA and NSA, where each side brings to bear everything they've got. It'll have to be in a place removed from any centre of civilisation and culture, so put them on the lawn outside the White House. Behold the simple beauty of genius!
If you want privacy, don't go out in public where people can see you. And remember, just because you are sitting at home, undressed in front of you computer, you are still making yourself "visible" in a public place when you use the internet.
Alternatively, make sure that you stay insignificant and unremarkable, and nobody will bother you, whether they are criminals or government; but I repeat myself.
Slashdot Mirror
Why not just brand criminals like cattle? I don't know, a star of David on their face, something like that? Cut off an ear or a hand. These practices have been banned in all Western societies - in fact in all englightened societies - not least because of the idea that punishment should be limited in time, and in proportion to the crime committed.
Putting somebody's photo on a website like this is in effect very similar to branding; just think how difficult it is to get rid of the stupid pranks you put on Facebook when you were a teenager - and the consequences that can have. It is about fairness - about getting a second chance in life. Most people have, after all, done things that could have given them some sort of criminal record, had they been found out. Would you like to be branded for life just because you were a stupid teenager who felt compelled to prove that you "dared"? There is a big difference between getting a slap on your wrrist and having your hand cut off.
...the Personal Data Store includes a mechanism for fine-grained management of permissions for sharing of data ...
You mean like in Oracle, where the list of system and object privileges cover 14 pages in the manual (version 12)? In my experience this is simply too unwieldy to use in practice; in most cases you end up defining a small handful of roles (in Oracle: a bundle of privileges) that are used for everybody. Or if you are the average, lazy guy, you just grant dba to all users; you wouldn't believe how many Oracle instances I have come across, where the SYS account still had password "CHANGE_ON_INSTALL".
There is a reason why the admittedly crude and primitive permission model of UNIX is still around: it is easy to understand and use, and it can be surprisingly effective.
This is not, by any chance, connected to a general trend in the US to scale down funding for research and education? To me it looks like an act of desparation, like trying to revive the record industry with a season of X-factor.
There is no denying that young people have a lot of creativity and talent, but talent is only a small part of success; you may say that talent is "instant success" - you just need to add about 90% water in the form of sweat.
...will have to sever ties with their Chinese collaborators...
The obvious consequence of this sort of stupidity is that the Chinese will start leaving the US. Meanwhile, EU are investing heavily in research and so is China. Is it difficult to imagine that in a few years' time not only Chinese scientists, but also European and, for that matter, American, scientists, will be looking to work somewhere that is not the US? And unfortunately this is not just a silly hiccup, it is part of a trend that has shut down most of America's space exploration, as well as a lot of high-energy physics, just to mention two areas out of the whole mess.
... ...
Once I had mountains in the palm of my hand
And rivers that ran through ev'ry day
I must have been mad
I never knew what I had
Until I threw it all away
- Bob Dylan, Nashville Skyline (I Threw It All Away)
...the movie theatre is 1000% worse...
No - when you go to the cinema, you buy a product, and if you find that you have paid for something that is significantly different from what was advertised, you can complain and possibly even get your money back.
On the other hand, gambling outlets never advertize with "Come and lose a bit of money on a couple of hours of poker surrounded by tacky glitter"; their adverts are more along the lines of "Imagine if you won the jackpot" - something that is manifestly unlikely. IOW, they are clearly selling a lie; and the fact that the objective, average losses are fairly small doesn't really mean that it is OK - cheating your customers a little is still cheating.
You may argue that we should allow a little bit of cheating, because the harm is limited and so on, but that is another discussion altogether. Cheating is cheating even if we tolerate it, so let us call it by its real name.
The whole damn point of the USA is that we don't have a ruling class who gets to live by a different set of rules than the peons
It's a beautiful dream, but a dream is all it is. When the outcome of a legal case depends on how much money you have to pay for a lawyer, then you have, in effect, different laws for different classes. And since money and other wealth can be inherited, you actually have a mechanism for inheriting class independently of your personal merits. Just take the Bush family as an example: would GWB have become president of the US, if he had been the son of a factory worker?
Even the potential for upward mobility in American society is not unique - it has always been possible for a clever person to work their way up through the ranks; Roman and Greek slaves could win their freedom and achieve high titles, churls (a very low class in feudal society) could become nobles etc - there are many examples throughout history. What really makes a class society is when the useless children of the upper classes end up as rulers despite their distinct lack of ability. Does that not sound like the US today?
Greedy? I suppose so. But it has always struck me as a funny way to look at things, when casinoes call people cheaters; they are the ones who invite people to come and throw their money out against overwhelming odds: "You MIGHT win" - yeah, and all the air molecules in the room might suddenly end up in one corner. After all, it is only probability that keeps it from happening.
The standard argument one always hears is that "Nobody forces people go and be stupid". All that means, IMO, is that some people don't have the backbone to stand up for decency.
That's some impressive links you've got there - are you a marine yourself?
I'm not saying that you are wrong, but I think you are talking about what makes a good leader, and I'm talking about the simple basics of what leadership is: you lead, if you in some sense get others to follow you - ie. you go in front. Not all leadership strives to be as excellent, magnificent, powerful and competent as what they aim for in the Marine; I haven't studied the links you gave me yet, but I will.
Do you know what is meant by "servant leadership"? in my view that is pretty much the ideal leadership style - try looking it up.
On the face of it, it just looks ridiculous, of course. But that is often the case, when you are the first one to stand up and demand something. I don't know about America, but in my life time, I have seen several times that some pimply-faced youth has stood up for some issue that sounds stupid, pompous and completely out of touch - only to see that person become someone that you have to take serious some years later. So, don't underestimate this - it is about showing leadership, something that is so often misunderstood. Leadership only means that you are the first one to do something - that you go in front and others follow you; it often fails, but not always, and not because the issue itself is stupid.
Personally, I sympathise with the idea, even if it seems unrealistic. I suspect most people do, actually - we have all done one or two things in our youth, that we'd rather not be reminded of; the difference is that we didn't have access to a Facebook or some other forum where your social skidmarks are going to stick around for ever.
On the other hand, I think this is something that is going to be so pervasive that it will be commonplace, and when it is commonplace, it will get ignored, even in professional contexts. Not many years ago it was still seen as very damaging, if a public figure was revealed to have smoken cannabis as a teenager - who was it that tried to claim that "he hadn't inhaled"? But we all know that most people have done that or worse at some point, and in the end people will just shrug it off because it doesn't matter at all.
...ICANN is located in the US, but mostly because the most used services are based in the US...
Even companies that are perceived as American are no longer really so. Yes, Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, IBM, Oracle, ... have head offices in the US, but the have a very real, physical presence in many other countries, including China. So, today "American company" very often means "a company that started in America", that's all. People in Europe, who use Google probably only pass through the US occasionally. The internet is already "non US-centric". The Brazilians, if they put a cable across the Atlantic directly to Europe and cut the one running to the US, would not even notice the difference.
I think it is well documented that people learn better when they have fun - even to the extent that the fun doesn't have to be at all relevant to the subject. I recall an experiment where a comedy movie was shown on a screen while a teacher went through his lecture and his class remembered and understood the subject better than a class that didn't watch the movie.
The danger is that humour is sometimes difficult to get right; if you get it wrong, it prejudices the student against the subject. I've tried it myself - when I first encountered Perl, I was put off by things like "bless" and similar attempts at being funny (I assume?), and I'd still today rather shave with a cheese grater than use Perl. A shame, really, I've heard it is really useful, but there you are.
IMNSHO, we need much stronger laws to prevent repurposing of these kinds of data or retaining it any longer than strictly necessary
Perhaps - I just can't see that it will make much difference. The problem is that law enforcement is hugely inefficient - just look at patent as an example: if there were enough competent patent clarks, we would probably not have even 10% of the patents registered that we have today. But there are't enough resources available, so what is basically a good mechanism meant to protect the interests of the clever inventor, has become simply a tool that big corporations use to bully those with less resources. In the same way, more legislation will simply become another way to bully those with less resources.
I'm not so worried about adverts - over time I have learned to ignore adverts even to the extent of making a point of not buying things that advertised agressively. I don't think I am the only one either.
It's the same with privacy - of course I don't enjoy the thought that some odious lowlife may be poring over my innermost secrets, but it's just part of life, whether we like it or not. And who knows, maybe one day we find a way to make it either pointless or hideously unattractive - I would imagine ogling me in the nude is already pretty close as it is.
It's digital... who cares?
Well, we should care a bit - certainly enough to not lose the ability to decode it and transform information to other formats. There's a science fiction story about this (or probably many), about how we digitized all our knowledge and then lost the key, so to speak.
Maybe "we" need more than platitudes
OK, here's a radical thought for you: perhaps we don't need 'an internet of things'? Personally, I can't for the life of me see why I need my fridge, telly or toothbrush to be directly visible on the open internet. Even if I felt I needed to be able to see what's in my fridge from the other side of the world, I am sure I could do that easily with existing technology.
Why Are Some Hell-Bent On Teaching Intelligent Design?
Well, as you say, they are Hell-Bent. If you truly believe in God as the ultimate Truth, then you don't try to twist facts to fit your superstitions - because everything we can learn about the reality He has created will give us a greter understanding of Him.
The Bible, on the other hand, is just a collection of stories, told and retold by people to people and interpreted by people. How can it be anything but imperfect? Even if everything was directly inspired by God, it still had to be put into words of an imperfect language with a limited set of concepts. A person who really trusts God must by necessity see the Bible imperfect, even based on these simple considerations. Yes, it has its good points, and the stories about Jesus are inspirational, certainly; but to an open minded person, so is Harry Potter, to pick something at random.
So, the reason why some people chose to believe in the Bible rather than God, and try to twist reality to fit into a story about how the God of the Bible created everything in 7 days, must be because they are "Hell-Bent": they have bowed down to evil. What we call evil is so often about refusing to accept the plain truth in front of our eyes and the consequences of that refusal.
Anyway, that is my opinion, polished up and sprinkled with religion. Take the religion away and it is still true.
But I'm hoping we never actually prove that souls exist
How can we prove that when we don't even have a valid definition of what a soul is?
But any way, I think you look at it from the wrong perspective and attach far to much physical reality to what is merely an application of our ability to manage information. The power of the "soul" lies not in the amount of raw energy it stores, but in the fact that it manages the flow of something stronger. It is a misconception just like the idea that mankind is somehow the master of all creation, when in fact we are vastly outnumbered in every respect by micro organisms.
The soul is like a computer program, an abstraction, if you wish, for a set of electric signals that control a much stronger, physical reality. And like a computer program, the soul only has as much power as the subset of physical reality it can influence, and only for as long as that subset exists. When you switch off the computer, even the most magnificent program ceases to run.
I'd really rather not draw a Nyarlathotep-analogue's attention
Personally, I prefer to know what I am up against.
The Internet isn't supposed to be tied to country at all.
The internet is whatever it is - there are no universal laws, natural or otherwise, that govern what the internet should be. Other, perhaps, than the simple, physical engineering of it: you can't connect every computer directly to every other computer on the planet, so you do the sensible thing: connect to the ones closest by in a LAN, and connect LANs to a larger, regional network etc. Even without the question of one country spying on another, it is good, common sense to have several, hefty connections between country sized networks, so you are not cut off every time an intercontinental cable is damaged.
And to my mind at least, it makes perfect sense not to send all you traffic through a nation that can so easiliy be perceived as increasingly manipulative and untrustworthy in its intentions. When you look around in the world, this is what you find:
- America used to represent the ultimate freedom in many people's eyes; but it has been become much less so over the last 20 years. So, what people see is that IT IS GOING THE WRONG WAY. Where is America likely to be in another 10 years?
- Europe is, as Douglas Adams would have put it, mostly harmless. Not because they are marvellous and honest, but because they are so magnificently messy; will it have changed in 10 or 20 years' time? Nah.
- China used to be seen as extremely restrictive and backwards, but have improved massively and consistently over the last few decades. Where does it feel likely they will be in 10 or 20 years?
I mean, out of these three options, which one would YOU choose? Even Americans don't trust America any more.
My first thought when I read this was "That's a good idea, really" - not because I am against modern technology, but they have challenged themselves in a way, and found that it gives them something of real value.
I don't quite know if I find it amusing or shocking to see the sort of reactions here, even to the extremes of declaring that this is child abuse and an impending, national emergency. Really, you sound like a bunch of old prudes upon discovering that their teenage granddaughter as uncovered her ankle in public. What's up with you guys? Scared of the very thought that these people might be right, and you ought to put down your wankGadget and go into the big room with the blue ceiling?
Going outside, getting exercise, feeling the wind, sunshine and rain, meeting people and generally challenging yourself physically, socially and mentally are all good for you. You even become a better coder if you are not glued to the internet socket all day long. You will have more energy, you will feel less depressed.
I think we should applaud these guys - the internet and modern technology are good tools, but they are TOOLS. They shouldn't fill your whole life any more than a hammer or a frying pan.
Give me a break
Certainly, since you ask so politely - do you prefer an arm or a leg?
Do you know my mother tongue, Shanghainese, has been banned in kindergartens for decades and special permits are required to broadcast in the local public media?
Is that a fact? Well, my native dialect, Vendelbomaal, was similarly "oppressed" by the Danish government. It was not taught in school, we were all discouraged from speaking or writing it, and all public communications were in the official dialect. And the Danish state-controlled schools say that Vendelbomaal is only a dialect of Danish, despite the fact that nobody else understands it.
Now, of course, the above is a parody of your words, but it is factually true; you can go and check it if you don't believe it. And there are very good reasons for calling Vendelbomaal a dialect rather than a separate language from Danish - it is to do with history, language structure, common roots etc. But that is in fact the same reasons why Chinese dialects are called dialects: you can trace the Chinese written and spoken language back to common roots (see Karlgreen: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Grammata-Serica-Recensa-Bernhard-Karlgreen/dp/9576382696/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1378996910&sr=8-1&keywords=bernhard+karlgreen), for one thing.
When the commie government blurs the facts, they are pressing the ethnic/cultural homogenization button.
When people start pulling out emotional scare words like "commie" and "ethnic homogenization", what they really say is "I have no more arguments, so I am going to resort to name calling soon". I think you are feeling upset and you want it to be somebody's fault; I'm sorry if this is the case, I really am.
Just ask the happy and contented people of Tibet. Oh, you can't, the Chinese government doesn't let them talk to foreigners. Well, they're happy and contented. Just take our word for it.
You're just being silly now. It is perfectly possible to go to Xizang and talk to people; it is rather expensive, but not impossible, and even less so, now the new, high-speed railway is operating. I have travelled all over China in the last 10 years - Yunnan, Hainan, Hunan, Xinjiang, just to mention a few. This is not North Korea, nobody follows you around, discreetly intimidating the general population; but don't take my word for it - go and see for youself.
Of course the Tibetans are not all entirely happy about being part of China; what they are even less satisfied with is that there are so many Chinese immigrants. Just like a lot of Americans are unhappy about all those Mexican immigrants or whatever. I can understand that - it is upsetting when a lot of new people come in and sometimes seem to dominate more and more; it always leads to conflict, but it is not really because the Chinese government tries to oppress the poor Tibetans, no more than Mexico is trying to take over the US.
*GROAN*
That's what happens when you try to be bloody clever, innit? please insert a NOT in the proper place....
Well, done, you've found a valid use for a subjunctive. However, I was speaking hypothetically.
It's different. English is pretty much the defacto common language in the US, and it was chosen because it was the overwhelmingly dominant language. Mandarin has always been playing catch up trying to drown out regional languages. This article is not at all a surprise, it's mostly just showing how their ethnic homogenization programs are failing.
That's just a stupid thing to say. Mandarin is not "playing catch up trying to drown out regional languages" - the Chinese government has for a long time had an active policy of protecting minorities, their cultures and languages. However, it is important that everybody is able to communicate in the same language, so Mandarin is being taought in school, just like the Queen's English is being taught to all school children in UK, even if they speak another language at home.
And I think it is worth remembering that it was us proud, freedom-loving and democratic Westerners that went about ttrying to strangle local dialects and minority languages: in UK Welsh and Gaelic were suppressed, the Danes tried to eradicate inuit in Greenland, etc etc. As far as I know, the Chinese have never even tried something like that.
Lawsuit? Why miss the opportunity for combining a bit of fun and innocent entertainment with something that would benefit us all?
What we do is, arrange a shoot-out between NRA and NSA, where each side brings to bear everything they've got. It'll have to be in a place removed from any centre of civilisation and culture, so put them on the lawn outside the White House. Behold the simple beauty of genius!
If you want privacy, don't go out in public where people can see you. And remember, just because you are sitting at home, undressed in front of you computer, you are still making yourself "visible" in a public place when you use the internet.
Alternatively, make sure that you stay insignificant and unremarkable, and nobody will bother you, whether they are criminals or government; but I repeat myself.